1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is the Matter with Einstein?

  1. Nov 8, 2004 #1
    Several years ago, while I was thinking about dark matter and how we had misplaced 96% the matter in the universe, I realized that something was very wrong with how we perceived matter and that something was fundamentally wrong with physics. To think that 96% of the matter in the universe is invisible, right in front of our eyes and we can't see it except for its interaction with matter is a very unsettling thought. All we know about this dark matter is that it is responsible for holding our galaxies together. The conclusion that I reached was that their is something fundamentally wrong with the physics concerning matter and that their must have been a moment in our past where physics took the wrong path in its evolution. Since Albert Einstein marked the beginning of the age of modern physics with his Special Relativity theory I decided to begin there.

    Einstein based his theory on the fact that light has the same speed for all observers. He didn't bother to determine why it is so, just that the Lorentz transformation must be a result of its fact. Since then, nobody has bothered to determine just why light travels at the speed that it does, and no other! Einstein did not bother to include the multidimensional state of matter, nor the possibility that time might be multidimensional even though he required the use of the square root of minus one in his equations. We should have known that their must be something wrong with Relativity when it disagreed with Quantum Mechanics, and when it predicted that it takes an infinite amount of energy to force a particle of mass to reach the speed of light! It is amazing that no one has determined why!

    Ever since I was a graduate student I have been bothered that a particles mass must increase with its speed. That was the point when it became apparent to me that particles don't reach the speed of light, waves do; and, in particular, matter waves do. It then became a question of "when does a particle become a wave?"

    A close examination of Quantum Mechanics shows that Schrodinger's equation, and, in particular, the operator for momentum, indicates that a particle's motion occurs as a wave; and as a wave it travels at the speed of light with an energy of h-bar omega. Thus a particle is stationary except when it is in motion as a wave! Relativity indicates that the wave travels in imaginary time and that the particle is stationary during real time.

    An object travels at a speed v by converting a portion of its particles to waves, those waves displace a distance dx, and those waves then convert back to particles. This cycle continues until all the particles in the object are displaced a distance dx. Then these cycles repeat causing the object to move at the speed indicated. The distance dx is on the order of 10exp(-30) cm. during an imaginary time interval on the order of 10exp(-40) sec. The motion appears to be continuous. Motion on an object is similar to that of a Slinky moving down a staircase. During a cycle the particle's time has the form

    T=T*{SQRT(1-VV/CC) + iV/C}
    where the real part is the time during which the particle is at rest, and the imaginary part is the time during which the wave travels the distance dx. The real time is the time during which the particle ages. Mass does not age during imaginary time. This complex number has a magnitude which is conserved and is independent of speed. Likewise, the matter in the object has the form
    M=M*{SQRT(1-VV/CC) + iV/C).
    The real term is the mass of the object and the imaginary term is the equivalent mass of the wave, which comes from E=M*CC. The velocity of the object is then

    v = cSIN(phi)
    where phi is the phase of the complex numbers.

    In the absence of a potential field the object will continue its motion by continuously performing the mentioned state changing cycles. In the presence of a potential field the object will accelerate by increasing or decreasing the number of particles each moment that undergo the state changing cycles. This theory of motion is seen to be quite different than Newton's F = MA. A particle in a field will be coaxed by that field into using its own energy to change its states and displace the distance dx. Motion does not have to be forced! With the proper field motion of an object can be enticed to happen naturally. An object can be enticed to reach relativistic speed by converting all of its mass into kinetic energy. The equations of Classical Mechanics can be derived from this model by making the approximation that v is much less than c.

    We can now understand that all observers, no matter how fast they travel, will spend some time in the real dimension of time, during which they can measure the speed of light. Observers, being objects of mass, experience life in real time, and are completely unaware of imaginary time. During that real time all observers are stationary, at rest, and each will determine the same number for the speed of light! Also, the questions concerning Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are resolved: a particle's position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously simply because they don't occur at the same time. The relation for energy and time are equally resolved: A particle doesn't experience its kinetic energy except during imaginary time. It is amazing that Heisenberg had this insight concerning uncertainty without understanding why.

    Their is one more thing about relativity that needs correcting: The requirement that all particles are stationary during their real time and travel at c, the velocity of light, during its imaginary time, means that matter "knows" what stationary is, or zero velocity, and that it "knows" the value of c. This requires that an absolute reference does exist! In which case Relativity really doesn't exist!! The principles of Relativity are now inherent in the principles and equations of Quantum Mechanics.

    Formalization of this new Wave Theory of Matter will require the use of mathematics from Quantum Mechanics, fluid dynamics, Maxwell's equations and Maxwell-like equations concerning wave probabilities. We can see that a hole has a large curl and a relatively small divergence for its appetite for matter and its Hawking radiation, and that it exists entirely in its wave state and in imaginary time. A hole exists in a different place and time, appearing to us as a singularity. A star has a large kinetic energy requiring its mass to exist mostly in its wave state, and the star ages at a comparatively small rate. Dark matter is simply matter waves, or the dark side of matter. And microwave background radiation is really matter waves passing through "our" universe from outside. The subject of the Big Bang may have to be revisited now. Physics now takes on a modern flavor. And a unifying theory may be just around the corner.

    So what does all of this mean? When we learn to produce the proper field artifically we will be able to entice an object into the desired motion without forcing it to do so. It will be a much more efficient way to produce motion. Transportation of people and goods will be done cheaply, efficiently, very quickly and silently without roads and the polution that is presently the case. We will be able to produce engines that don't use fossil fuel, and we won't have to fight wars to secure the remaining fuel on earth. Space travel to anywhere will be possible, and done in imaginary time without anyone aging in the process. A new source of energy will be available by using the field to convert any mass into kinetic energy and transforming this energy into a more useful form. This model holds answers to questions from every field of physics. Scotty, beam me up, the future is here!

    Ron Poteet
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unfortuantely, I'm a very imp[atient person and so I didn't read all of your post, but allow me to point out one thing. Ok, so you don't like the idea that most of the matter in the universe is 'invisible' (but why should we expect it to be of the sort that can be easily observered anyway?), but why pick on the theory of relativty or quantum mechanics? To do claculations on a galactic level we use plain old Newtonian physics, so clearly Newtonian physics must be wrong as well as it also predicts the existance of drak matter (though I could point out this idea is at least worth invetsigation which is why MOND was formulated, but the evidnece seems to come out in favour of cold dark matter theories).
  4. Nov 8, 2004 #3

    Andrew Mason

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I was wondering, do neutrinos unsettle you? Recent data establishes that neutrinos have rest mass. Since they have mass and do not interact with EM phenomena, they contribute to the dark matter in the universe. This has little to do with relativity.

    Of course he determined why it is so. It follows from the principle of relativity: that all inertial observers agree on the laws of physics. Since the speed of light is determined by electromagnetic constants, [itex]\epsilon_0 , \mu_0[/itex] if they are the same for all inertial observers, the speed of light will be the same for all inertial observers.

    I just gave you the reason: Maxwell's equations provide that [itex]c = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}[/itex].

    Where exactly does SR require imaginary numbers?

    I don't think it is correct to say that relativity disagrees with QM. The reason it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light because a particle with rest mass cannot reach the speed of light. It cannot reach the speed of light because light will always move away from a particle with rest mass - at the speed of light.

    What matter waves reach the speed of light? Not de Broglie waves.

    What part of relativity says this?

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: What is the Matter with Einstein?
  1. What is Matter? (Replies: 20)

  2. What is matter? (Replies: 2)

  3. What is matter? (Replies: 20)